charles matthews wrote:
Apologies in return. I made it abundantly clear during the ArbCom elections that I didn't think precedent is a good basis for Arbitrators having their hands tied. Therefore I also don't think much of your extrapolations. Asking that each case be treated on its merits is a much better bet.
While there must always be room for flexibility and re-assessment there are also reasons that every established legal system on the planet relies heavily on precedence. No, I am not suggesting that ArbCom should follow a legalistic design (any moreso than it does already), but the logic behind the principle of precedence applies in any case.
A few months back there was an intense discussion about pedophiles on Wikipedia... which allowed them to stay openly. That was a precedent. The various user pages where editors have identified themselves as pedophiles yet not had these statements removed or their accounts blocked over long periods of time were precedents.
We CAN change the situation (and apparently now HAVE done so), but the precedents should not be ignored. The 'bad actors' in this were largely following what were, in truth, the established norms... but were then judged against standards which simply did not exist at the time they made their decisions. That is capricious and inherently destructive.
As for 'extrapolations':
"While not explicitly stated on Wikipedia:User page, it is implicit there that users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the project into disrepute. The pedophile userbox (and the like) falls into this category. Note that this should not be construed to bar reasonable criticism of the project."
That's from the final decision. The pedophile userbox, as I recall, contained the text 'This user is a pedophile'. Thus, the only 'extrapolation' here is that the statements I listed were "like" that one. I can't imagine that anyone would claim they are not. So... why are exceedingly similar statements being treated in completely different ways? Again, it seems capricious... did we establish standards solely for the purpose of shaping the outcome of this single case?
No, ArbCom should not have their 'hands tied' by precedent. However, acknowledgement of it's EXISTENCE would probably help them to arbitrate without being arbitrary.